No need to sign your posts. We don't stand on ceremony on here. I don't know if it happened in this case, but I'm aware of other cases where the contractors stepped outside of the remit and did things off their own bat. Basing opinions on a HDM article alone is a bit rich given their reputation. Inglis' reply seems to shed a it of light on things.
Changing the street sign seems a rather pointless and detrimental thing too... please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
It looks like they're going to have to get rid of them... "This clearly should not have happened as the gas meter boxes are not in keeping with the surrounding listed buildings" "The council will work with the contractor to ensure this error is rectified to protect this site of historic importance"
Non-Council vandalism? http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Coun...Allam-owned/story-26540719-detail/story.html? Council considers enforcement action over Allam-owned Rosedowns factory site By Hull Daily Mail | Posted: May 21, 2015 please log in to view this image ACTION: Hull City Council is considering enforcement action over the Rosedowns factory site owned by Assem Allam, Comments (7) Enforcement action could be taken over the condition of a former factory site owned by Assem Allam. Twelve months ago, the Hull City owner withdrew an appeal against a decision by councillors to refuse planning permission to redevelop the former Rosedowns factory complex in Caroline Street near the city centre. He wanted approval to convert the building into 26 apartments and to build 78 new homes on nearby land between Cannon Street and Bridlington Avenue.
It's not quite so clear-cut as the HDM are making out. The contractors did it without planning permission and without notifying the Council, and while retrospective planning permission has been applied for, I would be very surprised if it were granted.
Job's a good 'un... 10A King Street Kingston Upon Hull HU1 2JJ Listed Building Consent Application for:- 1) Removal of 5 semi-recessed gas meter boxes re-instatement of brickwork to the archway leading on to Prince Street. 2) Installation of gas meter boxes to rear of existing sealed door within archway, when door re-hung.(Revised Proposal) 12/06/15
Aye, fair play to the council for dealing with the contractors. I guess it's answered what became a question.
Where has OLM accused the council of anything in the title,as I think that question mark has been there throughout, hasn't it? The rest is just the usual fool looking for another argument.
I changed the title to one more accurate than the original. I put the question mark there. I'll leave it to others to work out who the usual fool looking for an argument is.
Ah, you've been doing your editing again, without making note; nothing changes, except the whole context of the discussion that can be read. In amongst your pithy and needlessly nit-picking remarks, did you not think it might be useful to indicate, even in some small way, that you had made a change to the title? As the original title was the opinion of the OP, does it not occur to you that the title should have stood, as he indicated it would? As you had already said you had too few facts to reach your own conclusion, why did you feel it necessary to impose your own view upon that of the OP? Just another abuse off your moderation powers, so nothing new here; I suppose you got exactly what you set out to get.
